Skeleon:As awful as their idea and plans may have been, I can't help but admire their simplistic approach. Plastic guns that have all the working parts of a regular gun? Would be an interesting experiment. I can't imagine such an item would be very durable, what with the heat and forces involved, but still. It might be functional for a couple of shots, I suppose.

think there are already plastic guns, they just cant be reloaded.

But please tell me im not paranoid about the idea of being able to print out a firearm being a bad idea...

ravenshrike:The point of Distributed Defense was not to make guns. It was to create what were effectively open source blueprints for guns, that anyone could use with a high enough quality 3d printer. If you live in the US it's MUCH cheaper to buy the barrel, metal stock, and time on a CNC machine than to even try to make a crappy plastic gun.

So they want to make it easier for anyone to make the things needed to make the "real" guns by anyone with a high end printer? to then be able to make any number of real guns?

That was the ultimate goal. This specific project was meant as more of a proof of concept. After all, if they could do it at all, then they could see what exactly needed to be improved and how the printer and it's material might need to change. Not to mention 3d home printing is just starting to hit it's stride. Who knows what's going to be possible in a decade.

Sorry but I can only think of negative implications of being able to reproduce guns in this regard for illegal purposes in black markets or personal crime/criminal groups.

The positives are great but they're already working on that before Defense Distributed wanted to get involved.

Zombie_Moogle:While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo

That's naive thinking for a number of reasons; assuming the public in oppressive, developing nations could even afford 3D printers in the first place, that only means the regime can also print them too. Plus, as useful as a printed gun might end up being to an insurgent, it won't be stopping any regime tanks or jets, or indeed, the guns given to loyalists. As a means of manufacturing guns, its probably less practical and efficient than the methods we use now - the only advantage this printer provides is letting anyone have a gun - including people who really shouldn't, and would have normally been prevented by regulations, bakground checks etc. That looks more like a liability than a benefit.

"Imagine if your biggest part in the human drama was to stand in the way of an innovation."

I hate them for that remark. It's like someone tapped all of the irresponsibility and self-importance out of the collected works of Ayn Rand, and melted it down into the tacky neon slogan. These people seem utterly oblivious to the huge responsibility their scheme places upon them. Even if they might be right about printable guns and technology being the way forward, at least spend some time considering the possible consequences of your actions.

People should be allowed to own guns. I think there is a definite arguement for that, and its a right that should be protected.

That being said, a printable gun is a horrendous idea. While I may approve of gun ownership, guns must be regulated. This allows for guns and other simple weaponry to be constructed simply and in secret. There's already enough illegal guns floating around. We certainly don't need people being able to print guns. That would wreck society.

Zombie_Moogle:While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo

I disagree. The opposing side can produce firearms just as quickly and easily (even faster, since they have more money). I think it would only increase the number of fire fights.

Also, think about countries in the Middle East, where many of the wars and hatreds are practically tradition, and who is "good" and who is "bad" has long been lost. Or in Africa, which has been passed from warlord to warlord for decades, and the true leader is whoever can amass the most fear. It would be massive bloodshed.

For the amount of money you'd be spending to get materials that the printer uses, and would function properly (They make metal ones, too, not just plastic), you'd probably be spending just as much as you would on buying a weapon, and it'd probably take about the same amount of time to assemble it as doing paperwork to be able to own such a weapon.

Zombie_Moogle:While the implications & dangers associated with such a project are obvious, they have a definite point here. Imagine what it would be like if oppressed & impoverished parts of the world could cheaply & quickly develop the means to defend themselves. I can't help but wonder if such technology wouldn't help balance the scales in countries like Iran, Libya, Sudan, The Republic of The Congo

That's naive thinking for a number of reasons; assuming the public in oppressive, developing nations could even afford 3D printers in the first place, that only means the regime can also print them too. Plus, as useful as a printed gun might end up being to an insurgent, it won't be stopping any regime tanks or jets, or indeed, the guns given to loyalists. As a means of manufacturing guns, its probably less practical and efficient than the methods we use now - the only advantage this printer provides is letting anyone have a gun - including people who really shouldn't, and would have normally been prevented by regulations, bakground checks etc. That looks more like a liability than a benefit.

"Imagine if your biggest part in the human drama was to stand in the way of an innovation."

I hate them for that remark. It's like someone tapped all of the irresponsibility and self-importance out of the collected works of Ayn Rand, and melted it down into the tacky neon slogan. These people seem utterly oblivious to the huge responsibility their scheme places upon them. Even if they might be right about printable guns and technology being the way forward, at least spend some time considering the possible consequences of your actions.

The idea itself is pretty stupid. 3d printed plastic guns would be 1-shots at most. It is however a forbearer of what's to come. 3d printers at some point will be able to make anything. The problem isn't printed guns, the problem is adjusting laws for it. You see how many freedom-removing laws corporations like the RIAA are trying to push? Imagine it when every single company out there tries to do that.

1 Guns cost way less than the printer anyways.2 Those guns would suck compared to the real deal.3 If someone wants to own a gun let them. It's not only a right but an easy to acquire item.4 While there are people that shouldn't have guns, there are also people who shouldn't vote. Or drive. Or raise kids. Or be alive. You can't just have someone with power arbitrarily control society, even if it would be for the best.

ravenshrike:Sorry Adam, but this is very, very wrong. Unless it is an NFA weapon or a full auto, no paperwork is needed. And for NFA weapons you just fill out the Form 1 on the BATFE's site and 200 dollars later you can make one. Can't make full-auto's though.

In any case, a single shot .22lr pistol, what they were trying to make, needs no paperwork. The fun part is gonna be when Cody Wilson sues that pants off of Stratasys for violating the terms of the lease.

Do you have anything to back that up, just out of curiosity? From my understanding, you need a license (or maybe it was just the tax stamp) to "manufacture" a weapon. For example, I have one of these:

And it is illegal for me to put a vertical grip on it without getting a tax stamp since it is manufacturing a weapon.

You would need a Form 4 tax stamp to do that, as by adding a grip or stock you'd be turning a pistol into a Short Barreled Rifle (SBR) which is an NFA weapon. So in essence, you'd be manufacturing an NFA regulated weapon where there was none before.

In the case of creating non-federally regulated weapon, as long as you're not intending to sell them, there's no paperwork required.

I was told adding a grip would make it an AOW (all other weapons) since it makes it so it designed to be held with two hands, rather than one. Either way, still requires the tax stamp, which is pretty dumb in my opinion.

For the amount of money you'd be spending to get materials that the printer uses, and would function properly (They make metal ones, too, not just plastic), you'd probably be spending just as much as you would on buying a weapon, and it'd probably take about the same amount of time to assemble it as doing paperwork to be able to own such a weapon.

This. I don't think a lot of people realize just how expensive this stuff is. My school's tuition is so high partly due to the 2 3D printers that are free to use by students. They're useful, yes, but theyre expensive and time-consuming too. I also like how people "know" that a plastic gun will explode after 1 shot. Try the XM8 project or Glock's "polymer 2."

Johnson McGee:How would a printed gun be at all safe? I'm sure a homemade gun made of lego (the same material at least) totally won't explode in your hand on its first use.

I'm seriously hoping you're saying that more for the lulz than seriousness. It's nice to make jokes about these being comparable to LEGO, but you do know there are far tougher plastics out there, right?

Like the ones GLOCK uses?

I am aware there are tougher plastics, it's just that most 3D printers use that type of plastic. Even the one in question here is supposed to be for producing models to make conceptualizing designs from CAD drawings easier, not to produce actual working parts.

For the amount of money you'd be spending to get materials that the printer uses, and would function properly (They make metal ones, too, not just plastic), you'd probably be spending just as much as you would on buying a weapon, and it'd probably take about the same amount of time to assemble it as doing paperwork to be able to own such a weapon.

This. I don't think a lot of people realize just how expensive this stuff is. My school's tuition is so high partly due to the 2 3D printers that are free to use by students. They're useful, yes, but theyre expensive and time-consuming too. I also like how people "know" that a plastic gun will explode after 1 shot. Try the XM8 project or Glock's "polymer 2."

problem is both Glocks and the XM8 both have the parts that take the brunt of the pressure made out of metal

Heat problems aside (even metal guns have problems with melting), the gun could very easily explode when fired.

Also, the ability to just print your own guns would be nightmarish for criminal justice. The guns would be completely untrackable, and easily disposed of--just stick it in the microwave after you're done murdering and all the evidence is gone.

triggrhappy94:Heat problems aside (even metal guns have problems with melting), the gun could very easily explode when fired.

Also, the ability to just print your own guns would be nightmarish for criminal justice. The guns would be completely untrackable, and easily disposed of--just stick it in the microwave after you're done murdering and all the evidence is gone.

how are they any less traceable then a stolen gun or hell even a legal gun you can get rid of a normal gun by burying it and no one would be the wiser most places the only for of registration is a 4470 form which stays at the gun store

Yes of course, I'm just saying they wouldn't explode, and the .22 plastic barrel would probably last for a magazine before completely failing, in which case you would probably just shoot a hole in your barrel, not suffer an explosionEdit: oh or you would gradually scrape material off the inside of the barrel as it warped, then it would breach in what would seem like an explosion, but would really be just the bullet punching through the already warped barrel. This stuff isn't the plastic your tupperware is made of and wont melt on the bottom rack of the dishwasher XD

Little bit of optimization required maybe but I imagine you could get a couple shots off before it broke completely (depending on the quality of the stuff printed). It'll be interesting to see how long it takes us to enter the era of disposable guns though lol

Really? Interesting. One of the tell-tell signs of coming from a country with very strict gun control. These things, I just dont' know.But yes when it comes to man's ability to conveniently kill his fellow man, science will find the way. Ah, science...

One of the greatest potential inventions mankind will ever create, castrated and impeded by the moral and ethical implications of how we will inevitably use it to more efficiently do unspeakable evil to each other.

Eventually technology will give each one of us the means to effortlessly destroy our entire species, and we won't get a month before someone pulls the trigger.

"Guns aren't necessary and the world would be a better place without them"

"But they help law abiding citizens defend against armed criminals"

"But if there were no guns, then that wouldn't be necessary"

"But blah"

"But blah blah"

When push comes to shove, there is no actual harm in them producing plastic guns with actual functional working parts, these actually exist already. Guns that fire with minimum metal parts still have metal parts. You would never be able to create a firing pin out of plastic that could in fact fire a bullet, for example. It's kind of paranoid that they even pull the printer based on the mere mention of plastic guns with functional parts for the reason I stated above.

That said, the people at at the gunmaker leased a product and didn't buy, meaning that paranoia aside, the actual owners of the printer can take it away at their leisure for whatever reason they choose.

This shouldn't erupt into a debate about guns as this is not actually a good forum for such discussions, as we have learned in the past here.

Rainforce:I lost the second I considered posting in a gun thread, but let's do this for the hell of it anyways:the content of this thread is and always will be:- >50% of all people from the US talking about freedom, needs more guns, and various absurd "that wouldn't have happened with more guns" scenarios- reasonable people that get shot down (heh) by the other party.none of them will ever listen to the other side, leading to a never ending discussion for and against the greatest US stereotype.Well done people, we once more have proven our superiority through stubbornness and inability to learn.Maybe one day people will see that those with guns will always shoot first at those who carry guns as well.Being harmelss and uninteresting is what secures survival, not being a threat to everything around you (especially not other threats)./rant

Haha, I enjoyed your rant until the end. Being harmless and uninteresting does not secure survival. That is only taking into account one situation, not both or all.

The debate itself is interesting though. The only way to defend against people with guns is to have your own gun. The fact that so many guns exist in the world is already fact. The thing that I find a lot of people miss is that it only matters on a case to case basis. People who don't live in the same areas as other people, who don't have the same environment aren't fit to dictate what people in that situation would/could/should do. That applies to for both sides. People who are pro-gun think more people should own them, people who are anti-gun think everyone should give them up.

Defense Distributed's mind set scares me. I would not feel comfortable at all if people were able to just print out a gun whenever they wanted. Walking around in a world like that, I'd be afraid any time I went out into public.

The real problem here is that the "angry Minnisoteans" don't understand where to direct their vitriol. They want to slap the hands of anyone who is thinking about making something that might possibly be used for nefarious purposes. That's 3-generation missing the point.

How about we teach our kids that it's not OK to shoot someone, instead of trying to control every avenue by which someone can be shot.